The realities of Labor Unions

[Iceweasel]

Yep. GM should have been left to fail.

Yea you tellem. And ALL the troubled banks and AIG should have ALL been allowed to fail. Right?

AIG maybe. The banking mess got too far gone according to most experts and the whole nation would have suffered. We did get payed back with interest so it worked out. Last I heard GM hasn't payed their debt to us in full. Those workers could have moved south to right to work states and made good money though. Fewer GM autos would have mean more of something else, demand still exists if a company goes tits up.

 

[BULLDOG]

.

Yes, there are all sorts of schemes for Wall Street to separate you from your hard earned money, i'm sure.

I've had quite enough of that, thank you.

Then, for you, there are money market funds required in each 401K that would grow as well as the money you have in your mattress. Well, better, actually.

Plus matching funds from your employer. Free money!

See? Easy.

I know. Still not good enough.

And by the way, pension funds are invested in -- wait for it -- the stock market. Often in hedge funds, alternatives and other securities which are riskier than traditional mutual funds. Why? Because the funds in the negotiated pensions have to earn enough money to keep up with promises made to unions and have to take higher risks.



.

Obviously, you don't understand the place of pensions or 401K hold in union negotiations. They are just another form of compensation to the workers. The workers could have the money being directed to either of those places, or added to their paycheck, but they forego that to put it up for their retirement. There are advantages to pooling those funds for a better return at retirement. The point is that pensions are the workers money to start with, that the companies agree to invest in a suitable way for the workers. The amount is negotiated each time a new contrast is signed, and the company is never surprised by the amount they are responsible for, or will be responsible for in the future. It is agreed to before the first penny is put back for the first worker. You and many others act as if pensions are some sort of surprise that the unions spring on the companies when ever thy want to. It's not. It was agreed to by all parties long before the first payout. You probably wouldn't encourage a business to unilaterally break a contract and not pay money owed to another business, so why would it be OK to do the same thing to their workers?

As a financial professional who runs both 401K's and pensions for business clients, I can tell you unequivocally that you don't know what you're talking about.

Yes, obviously the specifics and benefits of a pension are agreed to in a contract. But "it's the workers' money to start with?" Huh? No it's not. You even say it: "The company is never surprised by the amount they are responsible for." And the business is often held liable if the pension goes in the shitter, see below.

And, in order to comply with the demands of the unions in negotiations, pensions often have to make ridiculous promises of returns in the fund just to keep it afloat, and we're seeing the predictable results across the country, as pension funds are either in trouble, having to make adjustments or both. Look at Colorado's PERA disaster for a textbook case. They had to hit 8.5% annualized growth to make ends meet. So much for THAT.

And "there are advantages to pooling those funds for a better return at retirement". Uh, no. There is zero guarantee a pension fund is going to out-perform a 401K, and 401K plans are getting significantly better in providing options that are simpler and easier to understand while providing good growth and lifetime income guarantees, and often fees are significantly lower.

I'd keep going, but I suspect I'd be wasting my time.

My plan for unions is balanced, reasonable, workable.

.

As a person who is pretty good at recognizing bullshit on the internet,, I can tell you unequivocally that you are full of bullshit.

Pensions are compensation to the employee, so yes, it is the employees money the same way their paycheck is their money. Of course the company is never surprised, in the same way they are never surprised by what is owed for an hour of work.

It's not the workers responsibility or fault if the company can't properly fund pensions any more that it would be a vendors fault if the company couldn't pay for supplies. The company agreed to the terms just like the terms for any other contract. If the pension goes into the shitter, the company should be held responsible.

You don't think the workers have to comply with ridiculous demands in negotiations? It's a two way street bubba. Workers protections and compensation has been raped severely in the last several years, and it's all because of the companies mismanagement and/or greed.

Exactly where did I say that pensions were guaranteed to outperform ANY 401K? However, pensions are more stable if the company doesn't mismanage them.

I have no doubt you could keep going. I've read some of your other your post. But companies which are largely doing better than they ever have before shouldn't be able to slash payments, that they agreed to, to workers, who worked and earned the money, just so the company can maintain their huge profit margins. It's just standard business practice.

You want to stick it to the rich, evil, greedy employers.

Got it.

.

Not all employers.......Just the evil, greedy ones who renege on their promises while stuffing employees money along with massive giveaways from the government into their own pockets.

 

[BULLDOG]

It's not the workers responsibility or fault if the company can't properly fund pensions any more that it would be a vendors fault if the company couldn't pay for supplies. The company agreed to the terms just like the terms for any other contract. If the pension goes into the shitter, the company should be held responsible.

Yep. GM should have been left to fail. Instead, obama bailed them out with our money. Lot's of union guys would have been left without a pension but the company gave them what they wanted.

GM collapsed because of their own bad management, not from paying the employees what they had earned. They were bailed out because allowing them to fail would have crashed our economy more than right wing economics already had. If it was just a matter of the company failing without the greater effect on the entire country, I would have been against it too.

 

[Iceweasel]

It's not the workers responsibility or fault if the company can't properly fund pensions any more that it would be a vendors fault if the company couldn't pay for supplies. The company agreed to the terms just like the terms for any other contract. If the pension goes into the shitter, the company should be held responsible.

Yep. GM should have been left to fail. Instead, obama bailed them out with our money. Lot's of union guys would have been left without a pension but the company gave them what they wanted.

GM collapsed because of their own bad management, not from paying the employees what they had earned. They were bailed out because allowing them to fail would have crashed our economy more than right wing economics already had. If it was just a matter of the company failing without the greater effect on the entire country, I would have been against it too.

I didn't say the employees didn't get payed. They held GM's feet to the fire and they caved and made promises they couldn't keep. So both were wrong and they needed to let the marketplace decide who the winners and losers are, not government and crony capitalism.

 

[BULLDOG]

It's not the workers responsibility or fault if the company can't properly fund pensions any more that it would be a vendors fault if the company couldn't pay for supplies. The company agreed to the terms just like the terms for any other contract. If the pension goes into the shitter, the company should be held responsible.

Yep. GM should have been left to fail. Instead, obama bailed them out with our money. Lot's of union guys would have been left without a pension but the company gave them what they wanted.

GM collapsed because of their own bad management, not from paying the employees what they had earned. They were bailed out because allowing them to fail would have crashed our economy more than right wing economics already had. If it was just a matter of the company failing without the greater effect on the entire country, I would have been against it too.

I didn't say the employees didn't get payed. They held GM's feet to the fire and they caved and made promises they couldn't keep. So both were wrong and they needed to let the marketplace decide who the winners and losers are, not government and crony capitalism.

Bullshit. GM's management decided it was a good idea to build crappy cars that nobody wanted, and you want to blame the workers? What a perfectly republican way of looking at things.

 

[Iceweasel]

It's not the workers responsibility or fault if the company can't properly fund pensions any more that it would be a vendors fault if the company couldn't pay for supplies. The company agreed to the terms just like the terms for any other contract. If the pension goes into the shitter, the company should be held responsible.

Yep. GM should have been left to fail. Instead, obama bailed them out with our money. Lot's of union guys would have been left without a pension but the company gave them what they wanted.

GM collapsed because of their own bad management, not from paying the employees what they had earned. They were bailed out because allowing them to fail would have crashed our economy more than right wing economics already had. If it was just a matter of the company failing without the greater effect on the entire country, I would have been against it too.

I didn't say the employees didn't get payed. They held GM's feet to the fire and they caved and made promises they couldn't keep. So both were wrong and they needed to let the marketplace decide who the winners and losers are, not government and crony capitalism.

Bullshit. GM's management decided it was a good idea to build crappy cars that nobody wanted, and you want to blame the workers? What a perfectly republican way of looking at things.

What a liberal way to look at it. It's always somebody else's fault. If they were making crappy cars why were the workers being payed so much? Does not compute.

 

[BULLDOG]

It's not the workers responsibility or fault if the company can't properly fund pensions any more that it would be a vendors fault if the company couldn't pay for supplies. The company agreed to the terms just like the terms for any other contract. If the pension goes into the shitter, the company should be held responsible.

Yep. GM should have been left to fail. Instead, obama bailed them out with our money. Lot's of union guys would have been left without a pension but the company gave them what they wanted.

GM collapsed because of their own bad management, not from paying the employees what they had earned. They were bailed out because allowing them to fail would have crashed our economy more than right wing economics already had. If it was just a matter of the company failing without the greater effect on the entire country, I would have been against it too.

I didn't say the employees didn't get payed. They held GM's feet to the fire and they caved and made promises they couldn't keep. So both were wrong and they needed to let the marketplace decide who the winners and losers are, not government and crony capitalism.

Bullshit. GM's management decided it was a good idea to build crappy cars that nobody wanted, and you want to blame the workers? What a perfectly republican way of looking at things.

What a liberal way to look at it. It's always somebody else's fault. If they were making crappy cars why were the workers being payed so much? Does not compute.

I guess you need to talk to their management about that. They are the ones that made the decision.to build crappy cars.

 

[OnePercenter]

As a financial professional who runs both 401K's and pensions for business clients, I can tell you unequivocally that you don't know what you're talking about.

Yes, obviously the specifics and benefits of a pension are agreed to in a contract. But "it's the workers' money to start with?" Huh? No it's not. You even say it: "The company is never surprised by the amount they are responsible for." And the business is often held liable if the pension goes in the shitter, see below.

And, in order to comply with the demands of the unions in negotiations, pensions often have to make ridiculous promises of returns in the fund just to keep it afloat, and we're seeing the predictable results across the country, as pension funds are either in trouble, having to make adjustments or both. Look at Colorado's PERA disaster for a textbook case. They had to hit 8.5% annualized growth to make ends meet. So much for THAT.

And "there are advantages to pooling those funds for a better return at retirement". Uh, no. There is zero guarantee a pension fund is going to out-perform a 401K, and 401K plans are getting significantly better in providing options that are simpler and easier to understand while providing good growth and lifetime income guarantees, and often fees are significantly lower.

I'd keep going, but I suspect I'd be wasting my time.

My plan for unions is balanced, reasonable, workable.

The band-aid that you profess won't permanently fix the problem. The real problem for pensions and all American workers is Republicans/corporate America/wall street. Until American workers figure this out and kick the aforementioned to the curb........Nothing is going to change to benefit American workers.......It's only going to get worse.

 

[OnePercenter]

Whoa, union boy blew a gasket! Lots of businesses do very well and produce fine products without a union. Gosh, how is it even possible? Airline work is shifting to right to work states in the south, thanks to the heavy handedness of unions. Hate didn't make them move and hate isn't what motivates the opposition. Failure to agree with you isn't equivalent to not caring about working folks.

The fact that you think so is a big part of the problem, arrogance and intolerance is par for the course. So much so, unions screw their workers out of an job, so who really has the workers' best interest in mind?

Airlines are doing nothing more than attempting to increase profits on the backs of their employees.

Boeing union thugs are running them off.

Boeing didn't compete. Airbus is killing them. The Boeing answer is to fuck their employees.

 

[OnePercenter]

Yea everyone knows what the Boeing thugs tried to do to south Carolinas boieng plant, what little bitchs

Sure. It's the 'thugs' that are the problem, not Boeing that failed to compete.

 

[OnePercenter]

Again yup money don't mean shit to me I make enough

Or did you settle?

 

[OnePercenter]

If I make to much I will die, from my own deamons

Perhaps you should seek professional help. You do have the money for that.....don't you?

 

[OnePercenter]

Boeing union thugs are running them off.

Oh horse shit. You were just educated yesterday about what happened with Boeing and SC.
Why the fuck are you back here with the same lousy bullshit? You just like to lie? Think you are good at it or what?

I must have fucked you up bad cock sucker, i have been down here for years and know all about boieng

And yet you can't spell Boeing.....

 

[OnePercenter]

You want to stick it to the rich, evil, greedy employers.

Got it.

The Walmart 7?

 

[OnePercenter]

Yep. GM should have been left to fail. Instead, obama bailed them out with our money. Lot's of union guys would have been left without a pension but the company gave them what they wanted.

GM was bailed out in October, 2008. Nice try.

We can even go back as to why GM failed. It's called real estate failures through GMAC Mortgage/Real Estate, and the failed BushCo approved GM/Di-Tech buyout. Again, Republican/corporate America/wall street fail.

 

[regent]

In America numbers in any organization can be a strength for its members. Veterans join veteran's groups, business-men their groups, doctors theirs and so on down the line, and all done to protect the member's interests.

 

[OnePercenter]

AIG maybe. The banking mess got too far gone according to most experts and the whole nation would have suffered. We did get payed back with interest so it worked out. Last I heard GM hasn't payed their debt to us in full. Those workers could have moved south to right to work states and made good money though. Fewer GM autos would have mean more of something else, demand still exists if a company goes tits up.

Did you write AIG should have been failed?

 

[OnePercenter]

What a liberal way to look at it. It's always somebody else's fault. If they were making crappy cars why were the workers being payed so much? Does not compute.

As an avid collector of 60's US muscle cars, I can attest that GM made crap from 1973 until 2009 with their CTS.

GM's contracts with their employees have been extensions of their original contracts.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Yep. GM should have been left to fail. Instead, obama bailed them out with our money. Lot's of union guys would have been left without a pension but the company gave them what they wanted.

GM collapsed because of their own bad management, not from paying the employees what they had earned. They were bailed out because allowing them to fail would have crashed our economy more than right wing economics already had. If it was just a matter of the company failing without the greater effect on the entire country, I would have been against it too.

I didn't say the employees didn't get payed. They held GM's feet to the fire and they caved and made promises they couldn't keep. So both were wrong and they needed to let the marketplace decide who the winners and losers are, not government and crony capitalism.

Bullshit. GM's management decided it was a good idea to build crappy cars that nobody wanted, and you want to blame the workers? What a perfectly republican way of looking at things.

What a liberal way to look at it. It's always somebody else's fault. If they were making crappy cars why were the workers being payed so much? Does not compute.

I guess you need to talk to their management about that. They are the ones that made the decision.to build crappy cars.

So we take it you never worked in a manufacturing plant before child,? And think employees have no input and are not responsible for quality ?

 

[Wyatt earp]

What a tard and these are union plants we are talking about which is impossible to get fired at for speaking your mind, liberals are a joke